Commercial operators who take visitors on whale-watching cruises
in the Salish Sea have vowed to follow new, more restrictive
guidelines to reduce noise and disturbance around the endangered
Southern Resident Killer Whales.
The new
guidelines, adopted by the Pacific Whale Watch Association, go
beyond state and federal regulations and even beyond the voluntary
“Be Whale Wise”
guidelines promoted by state and federal agencies and many
whale advocacy groups. For the first time, the commercial
guidelines include time limits for watching any group of
whales.
Meanwhile, the Canadian government has announced that it will
restrict fishing for chinook salmon — the killer whales’ primary
prey — to help save the whales from extinction. The goal is to
reduce fishery removals of 25 to 35 percent, but details have yet
to be released. More about that in a moment.
The new whale-watch guidelines are based largely on recent
research into much how much noise reaches killer whales when
multiple boats are in the vicinity, said Jeff Friedman, president
of the PWWA.
Fishermen in the San Juan Islands are being asked to make
sacrifices this summer to help Puget Sound’s fish-eating killer
whales. Whether the voluntary actions will make much difference is
open to speculation.
A voluntary “no-go zone” for boats cruising the western
shoreline of San Juan Island has been announced by the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife. Boaters are asked to stay
one-quarter mile offshore for most of the island’s west side. A
half-mile protective zone around Lime Kiln Lighthouse is part of
the voluntary no-go zone. (See map.)
“This voluntary no-go zone is a good step in helping to reduce
human impacts in an important foraging area for Southern Resident
killer whales,” Penny Becker, WDFW’s policy lead on killer whales,
said in a news
release.
Years ago, the western shoreline of San Juan Island was a
primary hangout for whales, which eat mostly chinook salmon during
the summer months. In recent years, however, declines in chinook
runs have reduced the time spent by the whales in any one location,
so the effects of the voluntary closure are likely to be muted.
Humpback whales have been making the news for their organized
“rescues” — seemingly heroic efforts in which the humpbacks have
intervened in attacks by killer whales against other marine
mammals.
Humpback whales come to the
rescue of a Steller sea lion near Victoria, B.C. // Photo:
Alethea Leddy, Port Angeles Whale Watch Co.
The humpbacks have not only protected their own calves but they
have gone well out of their way to protect gray whales, minke
whales, Dall’s porpoises, Steller sea lions, California sea lions,
Weddell seals, crabeater seals, harbor seals, northern elephant
seals and even ocean sunfish, according to researchers.
The latest incident, in which humpbacks reportedly intervened in
a killer whale attack on a Steller sea lion, is said to be the
first reported incident in the Salish Sea. The incident took place
last week off Sooke, BC, about 20 miles west of Victoria.
“What we witnessed was pure aggression,” Capt. Russ Nicks of BC
Whale Watch Tours of Victoria said in a
news release from Pacific Whale Watch Association. “We had four
humpbacks trumpeting, rolling on their sides, flukes up in the air
multiple times.
“The killer whales split many times into two groups, with one
that appeared to try to draw the humpbacks away from the sea lion.
The other group would go in for the attack while the humpbacks were
safely away – but then they’d get in the middle of it again,
fighting the orcas off. It was amazing to watch.”
These killer whales were of the transient variety, a subspecies
of killer whales that eats marine mammals, as opposed to the
resident orcas that each fish.
The same attack and rescue was viewed by naturalist Alethea
Leddy of Port Angeles Whale Watch Company, as reported in the news
release:
“We got there in time to see some crazy surface activity, with
humpback whales splashing in the distance along with orcas. Then
two humpbacks surfaced next to us trumpeting, and the next thing we
know there were four humpbacks, possibly six, all defending the sea
lion.
“The water boiled all around as the orcas tried to separate the
sea lion from the humpbacks. It was a wild scene, with the
humpbacks even circling the sea lion trying to keep him safe while
he frantically struggled to get his breath.
“The anxiety of the humpbacks was palpable, and they took turns
diving and slashing at the orcas. This life-and-death drama went on
and on until the four transient orcas, known as the T100 family,
moved off in the distance. As they did, we saw the sea lion appear
next to the humpbacks being guarded and escorted in the opposite
direction.
“This was an unbelievable encounter. Hats off to our courageous
humpbacks and best wishes to our little Steller sea lion, survivor
for another day!”
In July, 14 marine mammal experts reported on 115 apparent
rescue efforts by humpback whales during what appeared to be killer
whale attacks on other species of marine mammals. Their report
appeared in the journal Marine
Mammal Science.
Reasons for these rescue efforts are open to much speculation,
but the researchers noted that evidence is mounting in favor of a
belief that killer whales that eat marine mammals, called MEKW,
attack young humpback whales more often than commonly reported.
“Clearly, MEKW predation, even if rarely observed and targeting
mainly calves and subadults, represents a threat to humpbacks that
is persistent, widespread, and perhaps increasing,” the report
states. “As such, humpbacks could be expected to show some specific
anti-predator behaviors, and indeed some have been suggested. Ford
and Reeves (2008) summarized the defensive capabilities of baleen
whales faced with killer whale attack, and they identified two
general categories of response.
“Balaenopterid rorquals (including fin whales and minke whales)
use their high speed and hydrodynamic body shape to outrun killer
whales and were classified as flight species. The
generally more rotund and slower-swimming species — right whales,
bowhead whales, gray whales and humpback whales — apparently rely
on their bulk and powerful, oversized appendages (tail and
flippers) to ward off attackers. This group was categorized as
fight species.”
Of course, it is one thing for the humpbacks and other baleen
whales to take a defensive posture. It is quite another thing for
them to go after killer whales when another species of marine
mammal is under attack.
In the report, humpbacks initiated encounters with MEKWs 58
percent of the time, while the killer whales initiated contact 42
percent of the time — at least for those cases when the killer
whale ecotype could be identified as marine mammals eaters. On a
few occasions when known fish-eating killer whales were involved,
the encounter was relatively benign, the researchers said.
The video, shot by BBC filmmakers, show a pair of humpback
whales attempting to prevent a group of orcas from killing a gray
whale calf. In this case, the effort was unsuccessful.
When humpbacks went to the rescue of other marine mammals, it
appears that the rescuers were generally a mixture of males and
females, according to the report. Humpback postures, whether
attacking or defending, involved slapping their flukes on the
surface, slashing from side to side, bellowing, persuing and
flipper slapping. The length of battles reported ranged from 15
minutes to seven hours. In the end, the prey that was at the center
of the battles was killed 83 percent of the time — at least for
those cases when the outcome was known.
“The humpback whale is, to our knowledge, the only cetacean that
deliberately approaches attacking MEKWs and can drive them off,
although southern right whales may also group together to fend off
MEKWs attacking other right whales,” the researchers stated, adding
that humpbacks’ powerful flippers covered in sharp barnacles can
shred the flesh of their opponents.
When in hunting mode, transient killer whales are generally
silent, not making much noise. Once an attack begins, they become
more vocal, perhaps to coordinate the attack. It appears that
humpbacks respond to killer whale vocalizations from distances well
out of sight of the attack.
The reasons the humpbacks would get in a fight with killer
whales to save another species are listed in three categories:
Kin selection: Protecting an offspring or
closely related animal.
Reciprocity: Protecting unrelated animals,
generally as part of a social organization.
Altruism: Benefitting another animal at some
cost to the one taking action.
It is possible, the researchers conclude, that humpbacks could
be improving their individual and group fitness to fend off attacks
against their own by protecting other species. One idea is that the
killer whales may think twice about attacking a humpback of any
age.
“We suggest,” they write, “that humpbacks providing benefits to
other potential prey species, even if unintentional, could be a
focus of future research into possible genetic or cultural drivers
of interspecific altruism.”
A multi-million-dollar tidal energy project in Admiralty Inlet,
north of the Kitsap Peninsula, has been approved by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission.
Tidal turbines for
Admiralty Inlet are to be provided by OpenHydro.
Graphic courtesy of OpenHydro
The Snohomish County Public Utility District, which was granted
a license for the double-tidal-turbine pilot project, says it will
be the first “grid-connected array of large-scale tidal energy
turbines in the world.” The twin turbines are designed to produce
600 kilowatts of electricity, enough to power several hundred
homes.
“Anyone who has spent time on the waters of Puget Sound
understands the power inherent in the tides,” PUD General Manager
Steve Klein said in a news
release. “In granting this license, the FERC acknowledges the
vigilant efforts of the PUD and its partners to test the viability
of a new reliable source of clean energy while at the same time
ensuring the protection of the environment and existing uses.”
The federal commission acknowledged concerns for fish and
wildlife brought forth by area tribes, whale-watch operators and
environmental groups. But the pilot project has precautionary
measures built in, according to the commission’s
order (PDF 503 kb) issued yesterday:
“For these new technologies, where the environmental effects are
not well understood, the risks of adverse environmental impacts can
be minimized through monitoring and safeguard plans that ensure the
protection of the public and the environment.
“The goal of the pilot project approach is to allow developers
to test new hydrokinetic technologies, determine appropriate sites
for these technologies, and study a technology’s environmental and
other effects without compromising the commission’s oversight of a
project or limiting agency and stakeholder input…
“A pilot project should be: (1) small; (2) short term; (3)
located in non-sensitive areas based on the commission’s review of
the record; (4) removable and able to be shut down on short notice;
(5) removed, with the site restored, before the end of the license
term (unless a new license is granted); and (6) initiated by a
draft application in a form sufficient to support environmental
analysis.”
Among tribes that fish in the area, the Suquamish Tribe raised
concerns about the likelihood of underwater turbines violating
tribal treaty rights to fish. The turbines have the potential for
killing or injuring fish, according to the tribes, and they could
become a point of entanglement for fishing nets and anchor
lines.
Tidal turbine location in
Admiralty Inlet
“Though we respect the tribes’ perspective and concerns, we
disagree that licensing this project will adversely affect their
treaty rights,” the commission stated in its order. The license
contains no restrictions on fishing, and it requires measures to
protect the fish.
Suquamish Tribal Chairman Leonard Forsman said tribal officials
have not had time to review the license conditions in detail but
will do so over the coming days. He said he would consult with
legal and technical advisers before laying out possible actions for
consideration by the tribal council.
Michael Harris, executive director of the Pacific Whale Watch
Association and a board member for Orca Conservancy, said he was
disappointed that more people have not recognized the problems that
can be created by these turbines — especially in Admiralty Inlet, a
primary route for killer whales and many other species.
The turbines will create unusually loud and potentially painful
underwater noise, Harris said. This installation is being developed
at a time when researchers are coming to understand that noise can
disrupt the behavior of killer whales and other marine mammals.
The turbines themselves have open blades that can injure any
curious animal getting too close, he noted. And if the turbines
become a serious threat, someone must swim down and mechanically
stop the blades from turning, something that could take four
days.
“I’m not against green energy,” Harris said when I talked to him
this morning. “But let’s not put blinders on. I would like to see
these turbines located in another spot. Why not Deception
Pass?”
Harris said it is critical for people to pay close attention to
the pilot project if it goes forward. Everyone should be prepared
to stop the experiment if it proves costly to sea life.
The order by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission maintains
that conditions of approval will protect killer whales and other
marine mammals:
“The Near Turbine Monitoring and Mitigation Plan requires
detection of fish and should provide observation of nearby killer
whales. Those observations combined with the hydrophone monitoring
required under the Marine Mammal Protection and Mitigation Plan
will allow detection and observation of killer whales if they come
near the turbines.
“The adaptive management provisions of the Marine Mammal
Protection and Mitigation Plan will also allow adjustments to
project operation if potential harm to killer whales is detected
or, in the very unlikely event, a whale is injured….
“This license also contains noise-related requirements that will
ensure the project does not have detrimental effects on killer
whale behavior. The Acoustic Monitoring and Mitigation Plan of this
license requires that if the sound level from turbine operation
exceeds 120 dB at a distance greater than 750 meters from the
turbine … the licensee shall engage the turbine brake until
modifications to turbine operations or configuration can be made to
reduce the sound level.”
According to several Internet sources, 120 dB is what someone
might hear standing near a chainsaw or jack hammer. That level is
considered close to the human threshold for pain.
In the Admiralty Inlet area, at least 13 local species are
listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species
Act.
One plant: golden paintbrush, threatened
One bird: marbled murrelet, threatened
Two marine mammals: Southern Resident killer whales,
endangered, and North Pacific humpback whale, endangered
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries
Service have concluded that none of the species would be in
jeopardy of extinction because of the pilot project.
Experts have concluded that marine mammals, including killer
whales, could be subjected to Level B harassment (behavioral
shifts) as a result of noise from the turbines. That would be in
violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act without incidental
take authorization. That means the Snohomish PUD must undergo
consultations with the National Marine Fisheries Service and
possibly change its plans before moving forward.
The PUD chose Admiralty Inlet for its swift currents, easy
access and rocky seabed with little sediment or vegetation. A
cable-control building for connecting to the power grid will be
located on Whidbey Island near Fort Casey State Park. The turbines
will be located in about 150 feet of water about a half-mile from
shore.
The turbines are manufactured by OpenHydro of Dublin, Ireland.
Each turbine measures about 18 feet in diameter, with a 414-ton
total weight.
According to the PUD, these turbines have been used in
ecologically sensitive areas in other parts of the world. One
location is Scotland’s Orkney Islands, which features a diverse and
productive ecosystem that is home to numerous species of fish,
dolphins, seals, porpoises, whales and migrating turtles.
The pilot project has been supported with about $13 million in
grants from the U.S. Department of Energy and Bonneville Power
Administration along with federal appropriations.
Partners in various aspects of the project include the
University of Washington, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
Sound & Sea Technology and the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory.
The comment period for proposed federal regulations to restrict
the operation of boats around killer whales has been extended to
Jan. 15, pushing back the implementation date.
It looks like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration is throwing open the door for “cooperative efforts”
that might even include some new on-the-water research this coming
year.
“We recognize that by extending the public comment period, we
won’t have enough time to issue a final rule before the 2010 summer
boating season,” states an e-mail sent out this morning by
NOAA.
The statement adds:
“We continue to believe that it’s important to address the
adverse effects of vessel traffic on killer whales in the near
future. In light of the requests we’ve received for an extension of
the comment period, however, we believe additional public outreach
will enhance both NOAA Fisheries’ understanding of public concerns
and the public’s understanding of the basis for our proposal. This
will also allow time for cooperative efforts to refine the
proposal. We’ll work toward adoption of a final rule before the
2011 summer boating season.”
The proposed rules would create an enforceable 200-yard
protective zone around the whales. That’s twice as far as existing
federal guidelines call for. See my
July 28 story in the Kitsap Sun.
During three recent hearings, many people raised questions,
concerns and objections to the proposed rule. Some even offered
suggestions.
Donna Darm of NOAA told me that the extra time would allow
biologists to explore and discuss some of the ideas, including
issues related to recreational fishing and kayaking within a “no-go
zone” off the west side of San Juan Island.
Research is ongoing, she said, and another year of data would
not hurt. New on-the-water studies may or may not be proposed. When
I raised the idea of an experiment using the entire whale-watch
fleet to test various scenarios, she seemed intrigued by the
notion.
“We have lots of comments to think about related to this
alternative or that alternative,” she said.
NOAA officials were surprised by the number of people who showed
up at the three public hearings: 180 or so each in Anacortes and
Seattle, followed by about 260 in Friday Harbor, according to NOAA
spokeswoman Janet Sears. That compares to between 40 and 60 people
at planning meetings before the regulations were announced.
Shane Aggergaard, president of the Pacific Whale Watch
Association, said he is pleased to see the willingness of NOAA
officials to discuss the issue further. At first, NOAA officials
did not seem to be listening, he told me.
“In the first part if it, it seemed like, ‘this is the proposal
and this is the way it’s going to be,’” he said. “The fact that
they’re looking at our recommendations or anything outside their
original proposal is a positive step.”
The outpouring of opposition, including comments collected from
passengers of whale-watch boats, has been huge, he said. “I would
be surprised if there are not 20,000 comments that they will have
to deal with.”
To comply with a strict 200-yard limit, whale-watch boats would
need to stay close to 300 yards away most of the time, he said, and
that is something that could kill much of the whale-watching
business, he said.
The Pacific Whale Watch Association has proposed a combination
of two ideas advanced by NOAA. The PWWA option would prohibit
vessels within 100 yards under most conditions, though it would
allow fishing boats to hold their position and kayakers to let
orcas swim by. Other vessels would need to stay out of the path of
the Southern Residents and observe a 7-knot speed along San Juan
Island from Eagle Point to Mitchell Point out one-half mile.
Some folks have let me know that they are alarmed that strict
regulations will not be approved in time to better protect the
whales this year. (Washington state law includes a 100-yard
restriction.)
Peter Hamilton of the whale-protection group Lifeforce sent this
message:
It’s really unfortunate that the orcas will not get more
protection in 2010 under improved vessel regulations. But of course
enforcement would still be an issue. In order to provide more
protection, Lifeforce hopes that NOAA and WDFW (Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife) will get more funds to step up
enforcement in 2010. Continue reading →
Two hearings regarding proposed boating regulations to protect
Puget Sound orcas from noise and disturbance have brought out a
variety of opinions. Folks involved in the whale-watching industry
showed up in large numbers, as did sport and commercial
fishers.
Scott Veirs, who studies the acoustics of killer whales,
blogged about last night’s meeting in Seattle:
“Overall, there were strong objections to the entire suite of
alternatives — from the 200 yard viewing distance to the no-go
zone. People for Puget Sound went on record saying that a no-go
zone was a step too far. And Ken Balcomb (Center for Whale
Research) voted for no action.
“I was left with a profound disappointment that so many felt so
unfairly burdened by the proposed rules. If the people who most
intimately and consistently share the southern resident’s habitat
aren’t willing to make a sacrifice to preserve the basis of their
livelihoods, how can we expect the public to act selflessly for our
regional icons: the orca and the salmon?”
I thought the piece put together by reporter Mark Wright of
KCPQ-TV (viewer above right) provided a nicely summarized and
balanced perspective on the issue, though it did not examine the
scientific issue.
To dig more deeply, take a loot at the extensive list of
comments compiled by the National Marine Fisheries Service in 2007
when
“potential vessel regulations” were being discussed.
Information about the proposed rule — including questions and
answers — can be found on the page
“Regulations on Vessel Effects.”
The idea of regulating whale watching around killer whales,
particularly in the San Juan Islands, has gotten a lot of attention
the past few years.
First, San Juan County approved an ordinance in 2007 that
required boaters to stay back 100 yards from the whales. That was
followed by a state law in 2008. Now, the federal government
proposes to turn their longstanding 100-yard “guidelines” into a
200-foot enforceable rule. See my story in
today’s Kitsap Sun.
I first wrote about the concerns of whale watching nine years
ago — before the whales were listed under the Endangered Species
Act. (See my
story from July 2, 2000.) I think it is safe to say — and Kari
Koski of Soundwatch confirms this — boaters have generally gotten
more responsible, particularly commercial whale-watch operators
based in the U.S.
This is a complex issue, in part because the killer whales
themselves are complex creatures with a high level of intelligence.
Trying to rebuild a population of killer whales is nothing like
rebuilding a population of salmon. I could say a lot more about
that, but instead I’ll make a few observations about the federal
action. Continue reading →
